When required to use a toothbrush in a location remote from the home, such as in the case of travelling, the issue of packaging the toothbrush for transport and storage commonly arises. Covers for toothbrushes are known and often comprise an elongated container in which the toothbrush is placed. Chavez, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,570,652 (1986), discloses this type of toothbrush container. A general disadvantage of toothbrush containers which completely enclose the toothbrush is their relative bulkiness.
To reduce the problem of bulkiness, another toothbrush container takes the form of a small rectangular receptacle or cover which is placed over the bristle portion of the toothbrush, allowing the handle of the toothbrush to project externally. Examples of this type of container can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,835,813 to Lorenzana et al. (1989); 4,880,020 to Schurgin (1989); 3,746,162 to Bridges (1973); 3,120,019 to Scott (1964); 2,655,968 to Simmons (1953); 1,041,315 to Marx (1912); and 741,321 to Flower (1903). Although less bulky than elongated toothbrush containers, these toothbrush containers are all substantially three dimensional and therefore require more than minimal space. Additionally, most of these toothbrush containers employ nonintegral hinging and fastening means for closure which increases both their complexity and the associated manufacturing costs.
In U.S. Pat. No. 1,827,654 (1931), Harper describes a toothbrush cover comprising a rectangular sheet of flexible, waterproof material adapted to be folded about the bristle portion of a toothbrush in which a slit adjacent to one corner of the material has been made, thereby allowing the handle portion to project externally. This toothbrush cover, however, utilizes additional snap-fasteners, is not adapted for disposability, and requires a moderate amount of dextrous manipulation for closure.
A general concern with the aforementioned containers is associated with hygiene. Although such containers can be regularly washed and sanitized after use, their users commonly do not do so. This can give rise to bacterial and viral colonization and the subsequent possibility of oral infection. A causal relation between toothbrush contamination and oral infection was discussed by Cobb on pp. 263-264 of vol. 183 of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal (1912). More recently, Hingst in Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie, Mikrobiologie und Hygiene B, pp. 337-364, vol. 187 (1989) presented data indicating that toothbrushes should in practice be disposed of at three month intervals and after all cases of oral inflammation. Additionally, Glass and Jensen, on pp. 713-716 of vol. 19 of Quintessence International (1988) report finding viable herpes simplex virus on toothbrushes seven days after use and have therefore recommended changing toothbrushes every two weeks for healthy individuals.
Although current U.S. patent literature does not disclose a disposable toothbrush cover intended for storage and transport purposes, Diamant in U.S. Pat. No. 4,384,382 (1983) shows a disposable toothbrush cover intended to be placed over the brush portion of a toothbrush to reduce mechanical agitation to the teeth and gums during brushing, in addition to reducing the risk of pathogenic infection. This disposable toothbrush cover emphasizes the use of a nonconventional toothbrush handle and is not adapted for transport and storage.
In summary, the toothbrush covers heretofore known suffer from a number of disadvantages:
(a) They are intended for durable use and as such can harbor infectious pathogens which can be transferred to the user's toothbrush and subsequently to the user's mouth.
(b) They are of a substantially tubular or box-like geometry which often takes unnecessary space.
(c) Their three-dimensional geometry, coupled with the fact that many are formed from polyolefinic materials, makes them difficult to print on.
(d) Their three-dimensional geometry and/or the need for nonintegral fastening structures do not facilitate large volume, high speed production and concurrent cost reduction.